On Friday I read the posts about some of the
"big theories" in psychology and the suggestion that they
aren't useful to students and was so stunned I decided to go home and
think about it for the weekend before I decided whether I should respond
and, if I did, what I should say. This was particularly timely for
me because I had just finished teaching Psychoanalytic theories to my
intro students and Kohlberg and Gilligan to my adolescence students, and
I thought that they were pretty successful classes. Everyone seemed
to be listening and they asked lots of interesting questions. We
outlined the theories of Kohlberg and Gilligan, then critiqued them in
terms with whether they had been replicated, whether they were sexist or
based on Western values, and whether they actually predicted
behaviors. I thought that it was a nice discussion of how theories
come from research, and how research also changes theories. We
talked alot about how kids think vs. how adolescents think, distinguished
developmental level from intelligence and culture, and about how to use
these ideas to communicate with others, develop expectations for others,
etc. I treated psychoanlytic theories as
literary/philosophical models that had some clinical utility, but were
not based on scientific evidence. (in fact, I taught humanistic
theories the same way this morning.) I really tried to present them
as something that used to be seen as science, while pointing out that
it's premises aren't testable and can be circular. I suggested that
perhaps criticizing these theories for not being scientific isn't fair
because it's analogous to (as Myers points out in his text) criticizing
baseball for not being an aerobic sport. Instead I tried to
emphasize other things that are illuminated by psychoanalytic theory -
why fairy tales and myths still speak to us even though these stories are
set in cultures that seem totally different from our own, how the
analysts gave us the notion that some of the random things that we do
aren't really random, and the idea that symbols can be used to express
things in a kind of psychic shorthand that we understand on a cultural
level. None of these notions can be proven
"scientifically," but it's also hard for me to dismiss
the usefulness of all of it. Aside from the fact that there is some
anecdotal science that is suggestive - the sexual arousal during REM
sleep posts recently, for one thing. Also, I think that
psychodynamic theories are getting some new life from attachment research
and that the resurgence of interest in evolutionary influences on human
behavior may make these approaches seem more useful for understanding
human nature. But this isn't exactly scientific evidence
either. It seems to me that the real question goes beyond whether
we should get rid of some of these historical theories because of a lack
of scientific evidence, but whether we should allow philosophy into
discussions of psychology. Or maybe the question is whether
psychology is both art and science, or just science? Personally,
I'm a researcher rather than a scholar, and I try to keep the two areas
separate. I don't mind the art of psychology as part of psychology,
but I get irritated when I see the art of psychology confused with the
science of psychology, and I get REALLY mad when I see theoretically
muddled stuff like EMDR and emotional intelligence, etc. that is neither
art nor science get touted as the science psychology. I'd be
interested in knowing what everyone else thinks, but from where I stood
it looked like the students found these theories interesting and were
busy trying to reach conclusions about whether/how to use them
appropriately. --Cindy M.
P.S. I feel almost certain that Dr. Esterson will fire
off a post showing that Freud believed his theory to be scientific, and
that other Neo-Freudians and analysts did the same. He will be
absolutely right in this assertion and I'm certain that all of the
references he provides will be absolutely relevant. I'm not trying
to defend Freud (this time!) and I'm not trying to say that
psychoanalytic theories are Correct. I'm only saying that I agree
that psychoanlytic theories aren't scientific, but disagree that this
makes them trash by definition. I'm also saying that I don't agree
that they are irrelevant to students. I also think that theories of
moral reasoning are very relevant to students. Just because we
don't have any really good ones right now doesn't mean that we should
neglect that whole area. I think we need a scientific theory of
moral reasoning that works and hope that teaching the ones that don't
will inspire students to look at this more carefully.
Cynthia Bainbridge Mullis, Ph.D.
Asstistant Professor of Psychology
University of Wisconsin - Whitewater
800 West Main Street
Whitewater, WI 53190
(262) 472-3037 Office
(262) 472-1863
Office Hours - Fall 2002
Mon 10:00-12:00
Tues/Thurs 12:30-2:00
Or by appointment
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
